Skip to main content
Log in

Proof by analogy in mural

  • Published:
Formal Aspects of Computing

Abstract

An important advantage of using a formal method of developing software is that one can prove that development steps are correct with respect to their specification. Conducting proofs by hand, however, can be time consuming to the extent that designers have to judge whether a proof of a particular obligation is worth conducting. Even if hand proofs are worth conducting, how do we know that they are correct?

One approach to overcoming this problem is to use an automatic theorem proving system to develop and check our proofs. However, in order to enable present day theorem provers to check proofs, one has to conduct them in much more detail than hand proofs. Carrying out more detailed proofs is of course more time consuming.

This paper describes the use of proof by analogy in an attempt to reduce the time spent on proofs. We develop and implement a proof follower based on analogy and present an example to illustrate its characteristics. The example shows that even when the follower fails to complete a proof, it can provide a hint that enables the user to complete a proof.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchanan B. G. et al. Constructing an expert system. In F. Hayes-Roth, D. A. Waterman, and D. B. Lenat, editors,Building Expert Systems, pages 127–167. Addison Wesley, 1983.

  2. Bundy. A.The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning. Academic Press, 1979.

  3. Bundy. A. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors,9th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer-Verlag, 1988.

  4. Gick M. and Holyoak K. J. Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 1980.

  5. Hall R. P. Computational approaches to analogical reasoning: A comparative analysis.Artificial Intelligence, 39:39–120, 1989.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones C. B., Jones K. D., Lindsay P. A. and Moore R. editors, mural;A Formal Development Support System. Springer Verlag, London, 1991.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones C. B.Systematic Software Development using VDM. Prentice Hall International, second edition, 1990.

  8. Kling R. E. A paradigm for reasoning by analogy.Artificial Intelligence, 2:147–178, 1971.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. McDermott J. Learning to use analogies. InProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 568–576, Tokyo, 1979.

  10. Munyer J. C.Analogy as a means of discovery in problem-solving and learning. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Manna Z. and Waldinger R.The Logical Basis for Computer Programming I. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1985.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Owen S.Analogy for Automated Reasoning. Academic Press, 1990.

  13. Vadera S.Heuristics for Proofs. PhD thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vadera S. Proof by analogy in mural — a more detailed account.Formal Aspects of Computing, 7(E): 1–29, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sunil Vadera.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vadera, S. Proof by analogy in mural. Formal Aspects of Computing 7, 183–206 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01211605

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01211605

Keywords

Navigation